- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:35:59 +0000
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
>>>Jeremy Carroll said: <snip/> > I see the choice space as: > > 1: Leave things as they are > 2: Choose a form X of canonicalization, > require parser to implement X > define lexical to value mapping as X and change what docs? > 3: Choose a form X of canonicalization define lexical to value mapping as X > leave text in Syntax largely unchanged (except use X in place of current > "exclusive canonicalization without comments"). This allows cheap and > cheerful parsers that do not canonicalize. The other question is: which X? I assume the choices are Exclusive or Canonical, with/without comments. Did we get a recommendation or suggestion from the commenters? > ===== > 3 is now my preference - I realise it needs expansion, but before I do that > I wish to list pros and cons, and get feedback from WG. > ===== > > Consider three use cases: > A) cheap and cheerful RDF impl using embedded XHTML > B) OWL or other semantically advanced use where it is desired that > representation in domain of discourse is not implementation dependent. > C) Embedding XSLT document inside and rdf:XMLLiteral (hence requiring > support for preservation of not visibly used namespaces) > > > 1: > A - works > B - doesn't really work, because of comments and not visibly used namespaces > C - might work depending on having an implementation that knows when to > preserve not visibly used namespaces > > 2: > A: expensive > B: works > C: does not work > > 3: > A: works > B: works > C: does not work > > i.e. our current position works non-interoperably for XSLT in RDF - a use > case that we have not seen, and that is its only advantage over soln 3 which > interoperably does not work for XSLT in RDF. > > ==== > > If we go for soln 2 or soln 3 we have to reconsider whether we wish to > preserve comments, and which not visibly namespaces we preserve. > I suggest preserve comments, and no namespaces that are not visibly used. OK, this is your X choice. Did DigSig group express a preference? From my experience, I think preserving comments will be tricky to implement on top of the C SAX API so slightly prefer not preserving them. I will investigate, however. I have no preference on the namespaces. Is 3 still too lax for "removing implementation variability from RDF/XML"? > BTW - if we go for 2 or 3 ARP will need updating - it has some support for > preservation of not visibly used namespaces. I could ask on jena-dev whether > anyone is using this feature. Yes, well, all the (updated) RDF parser implementations will have to change for 2 or 3. Since there are some that already claim conformance to the revised syntax. Dave
Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 10:38:35 UTC